An Analysis of the Factor Structure of Jones’ Moral Intensity Construct

Abstract

In 1991, Jones developed an issuecontingent model of ethical decision making in which moral intensity is posited to affect the four stages of Rest's 1986 model (awareness, judgment, intention, and behavior). Jones claimed that moral intensity, which is ''the extent of issue-related moral imperative in a situation'' (p. 372), consists of six characteristics: magnitude of consequences (MC), social consensus (SC), probability of effect (PE), temporal immediacy (TI), proximity (PX), and concentration of effect (CE). This article reports the findings of two studies that analyzed the factor structure of moral intensity, operationalized by a 12-item Perceived Moral Intensity Scale (PMIS) adapted from the work of Singhapakdi et al. The two items that were purported to measure CE were dropped due to their inability to effectively tap into the characteristic proposed by Jones. Factor analyses of the remaining 10 items supported a 3-factor structure, with the MC, PE, and TI items loading on the first factor, the PX items loading on the second factor, and the SC items loading on the third factor. These factors were labeled:Probable Magnitude of Consequences, Proximity, and Social Consensus. The authors conclude that moral intensity consists of three characteristics, rather than the six posited by Jones.

The Conceptual Model of Personal Moral Philosophy (PMP) and Ethical Decision Making (EDM)

“…In this stage, the person is realizes that he / she could do something that would affect the interest, welfare, or expectation of others. (McMahon & Harvey, 2006). In the second stage -judgment stage -the agent evaluates various courses of action to determine which are morally right and which are morally wrong.…”

Interpreting ethical challenges in military operations

“…Jones, 1991;Hayibor & Wasieleski, 2009;McMahon & Harvey, 2006). According to the seminal work of Jones (1991), moral intensity is a multi-dimensional construct including six dimensions: a) magnitude of the consequences which is the total sum of harm of the decision, b) probability of effect which refers to the likelihood of harm caused by the decision, c) proximity which is the social distance between the decision-maker and other beneficiaries, d) concentration of the effect which refers to the number of people affected by the decision, e) temporal immediacy which is the amount of time between making the decision and the onset of any consequences, and f) social consensus which refers to the extent of broad social agreement about the appropriateness of the decision (cf.…”

“…Singhapakdi et al (1996) also pointed at the relevance of moral intensity for the recognition of a marketing dilemma, showing that situations with higher moral intensity are perceived more often as an ethical dilemma than those with low perceived moral intensity. Finally, several studies suggest that not all underlying dimensions of morality are equally important for ethical judgment and behavioral intentions (e.g., Barnett, 2001;McMahon & Harvey, 2006;Singhapakdi et al, 1996). Barnett (2001), for example, found that social consensus influences the recognition of an ethical issue, whereas behavioral intentions and the final judgment are influenced by social consensus, temporal immediacy, seriousness of consequences, and proximity.…”

“…Moreover, McMahon and Harvey (2006) found that when measuring moral intensity with a 12-item scale covering the original six dimensions of Jones (1991), moral intensity is better reflected with three rather than six dimensions (i.e., probable magnitude of consequences, proximity, and social consensus). Singhapakdi and colleagues found that moral intensity was even better represented by two dimensions (Singhapakdi et al, 1996), which they labeled perceived potential harm and perceived social pressure (combining the proximity and social consensus dimensions).…”

“…Frey's scale to measure Moral Intensity has been used frequently over the years (e.g., Frey, 2000b;McMahon & Harvey, 2006Tillman, Hood, Lawrence & Kacmar, 2014) and is based on the theoretical foundations of Jones (1991). A higher score indicates higher perceived moral intensity.…”